Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Supported by

Clinton Sees ‘Rising Pessimism’

By Patrick Healy May 29, 2007 12:53 pmMay 29, 2007 12:53 pm

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, pledged in a speech in Manchester, N.H., this morning to reduce corporate tax breaks and eliminate incentives for companies that move overseas in order to combat “rising inequality and rising pessimism in our workforce.”

Mrs. Clinton, in remarks to 300 people at the Manchester School of Technology, did not so much lay out an economic action plan as she did outline, in her words, a “new progressive vision” to combat income inequality. She spoke more in broad themes, such as “shared prosperity” – the words on a campaign banner here – instead of new federal budget items. [Update: Full text of Senator Clinton’s speech here.]

“While productivity and corporate profits are up, the fruits of that success just haven’t reached many of our families,” she said.

“It’s like trickle down economics without the trickle,” she added.

Mrs. Clinton’s remarks were timed to compete with a major speech on health care by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading rival for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Obama is speaking today in Iowa, which holds the first-in-the-nation presidential caucuses in January 2008; Mrs. Clinton came to New Hampshire, which holds its presidential primary a few days after the Iowa caucuses.

Mrs. Clinton opened her remarks with several minutes of statistics about income inequality and, as she put it, the mismanagement of globalization. Her audience listened silently to the percentages of declining household incomes and rising corporate profits, then broke into light applause when Mrs. Clinton took a jab at the Bush administration.

“So many people I talk to just want to his the restart button on the 21st century and redo it the right way, and I agree with that,” Mrs. Clinton said.

Mrs. Clinton, while praising the fiscal stewardship of “Bill” (meaning her husband, former President Clinton), also said that the nation “can’t simply recycle the policies of the 1990s – these are different times.

“But we can return to the principles that guided us again,” she said.

That agenda, Mrs. Clinton said, included “leveling the playing field” by reducing tax breaks for major corporations; allow Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies; eliminate incentives that lead American companies to move jobs overseas; change the tax code so companies no longer escape taxes by moving business profits overseas; “recommit ourselves” to the goal of giving all students a chance to go to college; and provide universal health care and “save” Social Security.

Mrs. Clinton also said she was “not giving up on manufacturing,” but said that the “right” economic policies were needed to reinvigorate the manufacturing base. Again, she did not share many details of her plans in the 37-minute minute speech, though she did say that new jobs related to energy research and efficiencies and alternative energies could prove as much of a boost for the economy in coming years as new jobs in telecommunications helped fuel the economy in the 1990s.

After the speech, Mrs. Clinton planned to take a walking tour of downtown Nashua, and then fly to Las Vegas for a town hall forum on Wednesday and the start of a West Coast campaign swing.

Mrs. Clinton, while praising the fiscal stewardship of “Bill” (meaning her husband, former President Clinton), also said that the nation “can’t simply recycle the policies of the 1990s – these are different times.
“But we can return to the principles that guided us again,” she said.

– That being the case, why do we need to elect her to return to those principles? And aren’t the other candidates more or less championing the same?

I’m perfectly content to have Senator Clinton serve our country from the Senate (where she would be even more effective with a Democratic president in power), but I don’t want her in the white house.

Poster #1, Alistair McDGoz, Hillary Clinton was right on point when she spoke of restoring progressive values without recycling old policies. You are just not understanding, or you just don’t want to understand. If you look back at our fine history you will know that progressive values have always benefited the lower and middle class in America. The policies should be different but the principles behind the policies should remain. Hillary’s vision is right on target with what America needs. America will choose Hillary because it just makes sense.

Without details, she sounds like she favors a socialist society. She appears to forgt or perhaps chooses to ignore that ordinary Americans whoinvest in companies are benefiting from corporations’ success, and I don’t mean to say that everyone is wealthy. By eliminating tax breaks or incentives, companies can just pack up and move to a more tax-friendly environment, so that what will that accomplish? She and Bill Clinton are now among the millionaires of the world. How are they personally sharing their wealth?

The reason we need Hillary Clinton in the White House is to begin the process of moving our nation back to being recognized around the world as one of good will and not the constant agressor. We need to redevelop our strategic partnerships and alliances and she is best able to do that.

We need to be seen as making real change and electing the first woman President will be a start in doing that. The reality is that Bill Clinton is most likely the most popular politician in both the US and the world today. People reflect back on his time in the Presidency and see a time when we weren’t at war, our budget was balanced, and we were moving forward with our allies across the world.

Were there problems of course there were. Did repulbicans demonize him – and did he do some stupid things to help them- yes to both.

But the reality is what people will see in the long run. Times were better then and we were more respected in the world than we are now.

That is why they will vote for Hillary and why we need her in the White House. A brilliant woman who can deal with the slings and arrows that will come, but will keep her eyes on the goal of making this a better country for Americans and a better world for everyone.

“Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, pledged in a speech in Manchester, N.H., this morning to reduce corporate tax breaks and eliminate incentives for companies that move overseas in order to combat “rising inequality and rising pessimism in our workforce.””

WOW..YA THINK?

I would suggest Ms Clinton DISMANTLE THE DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP COUNCIL….that would go A LONG WAY IN RETURNING TRUE DEMOCRATIC VALUES TO THE PARTY.

And, it’s disingenuous to spout this stuff when your main donors ARE A PART OF THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE SOLUTION.

“Corporate Welfare Queens for Clinton”
Let’s change that little paradigm, shall we?
THEN – MAYbe this Independent MAY consider a vote for the Hill.

Trickle down economics doesn’t work, too many greedy sponges at the upper levels to soak up the trickle before it gets down to the people who actually do the work.

Why not try “trickle up” economics. Increase the minimum wage so people have enough money to buy stuff so companies sell more and make more profits that they can give to their workers, executives and stockholders.

If Senator Clinton . .. instead of focusing on her presidential campaign so far ahead of the actual votes being cast . . . had spent more time rallying her fellow senators to the cause of cutting off funding for Bush’s occupation of Iraq, we would now be seeing the beginning of the end of the occupation, instead of its open-ended continuation.

The position of US Senator is a very powerful one, and Senator Clinton has visibility above and beyond that of the typical Senator. She did not use her position of power wisely. What makes anybody think she’ll do any better as president?

We also would be justified in wondering if Clinton’s campaign advisors haven’t told her to NOT be forceful as Senator about ending Bush’s occupation in Iraq, in order to gain some advantage against a Republican opponent in the 2008 election. Since what’s at stake are young people’s lives, if that has happened, it’s disgusting. Even if it hasn’t, it’s disgusting that Clinton as Senator did not more actively push for the funding of the occupation to be stopped.

Yes read the data – and the data shows that Hillary has incredibly high NEGATIVE numbers for this period of a presidential election. Negatives only rise through the campaign which is why Republicans are cheering her current lead because they know she is unelectable as the Democratic candidate in the General election. But hey Democrats are used to putting up unelectable candidates – witness our self destruction with the campaign of Mondale (Hart probably would have beaten Reagan in 1984), Dukakis (enough said), Gore (should have beaten W in enough states to make Florida irrelevant), and Kerry (see Dukakis).

If the Dems are smart (for once) they will choose anyone but Hillary as the nominee and take the White House in an election cycle they should easily win. After all how much more ineffective can the Republicans actually prove themselves to be?

Stuart, your post is perplexing. First, you worry about corporations moving overseas but you fail to address Clinton’s comment that she will eliminate incentives to companies moving overseas. As for sharing their wealth, are you suggesting that rich candidates should just give their money away? Rich candidates who favor an increase in taxes on the higher income bracket will be taxed more – that seems fair enough.

As for others’ post – the right accuses her of being a socialist and the left accuses her of being pro-corporate. Well, what is it? I think the reality is somewhere in between.

Senator Clinton is an insider’s insider. I am simply not going to support that for another 4 to 8 years.

For example, the Senator has stated that it would take her 8 years to get a decent healthcare system in place. Why should something like this take so long when Americans need it now?

Actually, I believe she will make no significant progress with healthcare in 8 years or 100 years because she simply is unwilling to put herself on the line, i.e., get into a real fight with special interests to get this done. Insiders don’t do that.

Perhaps she would be happier as a high-powered lobbyist and Americans would be happier with any of Gore/Edwards/Obama.

Your email reads like a campaign slogan and ignores the reality that the foundations for the world today were primarily laid on Clinton’s watch during the 1990s, including the blossoming and growing strength of Al Qaeda. The peace we had during that period was more based on the end of the cold war and the subsequent power vacuum than it was on anything in particular that was done by the Clintons. In any event, there were several disruptions to the peace during that time, including Somalia (which was an unmitigated disaster cut short only by the fact that we left with our tails between our legs-that was a big mistake that only emboldened our enemies and helped lead to the September 11th attacks, the former Yugoslavia, and Iraq. That is not to say they did not do a lot of good things for the country-the balanced budge was much appreciated by me and a lot of other budget conscious Americans. Then again, balancing the budget (for all of us) was a lot easier when we had record low energy prices as we did in the 1990s. AGain, those prices had nothing to do with the Clintons. Rather, they were the result of market forces.

It is hilarious to see people who call themselves member of the DLC embrace “progressiveness” now that Obama has resuscicated the pride in progressiveness. We are talking about the Clintons that gave us NAFTA and WTO which has eroded jobs in america, off to China and creating a pressure on american wages as americans now have to compete with low wage countries like Mexico. What do we say about wanting to have your own cake and eat it?

The clintons are attention seekers. Al Gore popularizes Global Warming issues, Clinton rushes to establish a climate change program. Where was he when he was president while Kyoto got murdered by his own aides? And then, Obama comes and reinforces his background in growing up in various countries, Clinton starts running around that she travelled to 82 countries. It is one thing to land in an airport on Air force one to a red carpet sorrounded with secret service agents, it is another to grow up in the streets of Indonesia! She votes for a war and when it is unpopular, she now lies Obama shares the same view on Iraq! The clintons simply make me sick.

“By eliminating tax breaks or incentives, companies can just pack up and move to a more tax-friendly environment, so that what will that accomplish?”

Multinationals (like Toyota) are already choosing “socialist” Canada over US because of single-payer national health care north of the border. The US is the largest consumer market in the world, multinationals can’t afford to just pack up and leave just because they lose access to corporate welfare.

“She appears to forgt or perhaps chooses to ignore that ordinary Americans whoinvest in companies are benefiting from corporations’ success”

Yes, there are millions of ordinary Americans who are getting rich by investing in hedge funds and private equity firms that are buying out corporate America.

Regardless of her speeches now, Clinton needs to ‘fess up to her past positions. The fact is that she and Schumer let the Bush administration set the terms of public speech after 9/11 and she was pro-war against Iraq.

I can vote for a flip-flopper who justifies her flip-flopping, but will Clinton admit to political opportunism at every turn (except pro-choice) during her years in the Senate?

I agree with peter dc. Mrs. Clinton should clean de American image in the world,both for being a woman and for being her. On the other side, she should avoid the demagogic proposals of Ségolène Royale in France

I want to address the person who called Clinton a “socialist.” Forgive me, but I am 56 years old and angry.

There are no “socialists” to speak of in the U.S. The few that do exist belong to a tiny party that gets virtually no votes and is not even on the ballot in most States.

There are, however, liberal Democrats. For the last 30 years, however, Democrats have been able to do virtually nothing to prevent Republican policy from eroding the economic security of middle and working class Americans. This is because Democrats have been unable to overcome the Republican’s rhetoric, which consists mainly of flag-waving slogans, anti-gay and anti-feminist slander, and red-baiting, and which has persuaded Americans to vote against their own economic interests.

Would you like health care? Would you like to protect social security? Do you wonder whatever happened to your pension? Would you like to send your kids to college, or have the really rich pay taxes for a change?

Do you want to know why corporate CEOs are earning megabucks while good people like yourself have no health insurance and are being laid off by Walmart and Circuit City? Do you want to know where all those billions earned by Exxon last year went, and why none of it went to you in the form of lower gasoline prices? These awful conditions have developed, my friends, because the Republican rich have labeled every government program that might have assisted working and middle-class Americans a a “socialist” plot (or, since 9/11, a “threat to security”), and people like you have bought that line. You have sold your life, your future and your children’s future, all for a few slogans, a couple of “feel good” moments, and the liberty of hating people who have done you no harm.

So you can label people socialists for suggesting that taxes be raised on mega-corporations and people earning $60 million a year, and imagine that a fair tax system would drive business overseas. Meanwhile, we will all go without medical insurance or pensions and remain up to our necks in debt, while the protectors of freedom and democracy vacation in the Hamptons.

Repeat, people: the Democratic candidates are not “socialists,” but are merely trying to help you. The Republicans are playing you for fools. Are you one? Does a cowboy hat and a western accent distract you from your child’s college tuition needs? Is grooving with Rush (or the Heritage Foundation, if you’re too cool for Rush) more important than economic security?

As I said, I’m angry, middle-aged and tired of trying: apparently, ignorance is a wall that no amount of truth and reality can to knock down.

Eliminating incentives for businesses moving overseas would mean doing away with low-paid, highly motivated workers in countries like Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. It is not beyond their ambition, but certainly beyond their ability. Their current ability.

As a long-time liberal (make that ‘Flaming Liberal’), I recently took an informal poll of 72 liberal friends, business acquaintances, family, and distant relatives and virtually no one wanted Hillary as the Democratic candidate for president, nor as president unless the option was a conservative Republican.
Moreover, almost none of those 72 respondents themselves knew of anyone who was enthusiastic for Hillary — which makes one wonder what in the world are all those professional pollsters all about. I suspect the early small-state primaries will show just how politically unappetizing she really is.

While Mrs. Clinton is a smart and capable person and while her husband was a fine president and while I am Democrat I do not what to see another Clinton in the White House. I am tired, sixk and tired, of political dynasties. We need a change and we simply won’t get that by electing the same tired group of political players that have been foisted on us over the past 20+ years.

Ah—the sweet sounds of whispered little nothings………..and equality is “sharing in the prosperity” of 12 to 20 million (criminal) illegal aliens waving their fists, demanding we speak Spanish, and holding our legal and educational systems hostage to their “separate but equal” cries?

Worse yet, “doing the jobs no one wants to do” while driving the American worker and middle class into bankruptcy with falling wages? Address the issues at hand—corporate sponsorship of elected officials and their resultant legislation.

I may have considered Clintons’ validity on the national stage a decade ago, but, like she said “time is up”! So stay in New York where you belong!

Scott Rose, while people like Reid and Obama were saying that the Democrats will capitulate on the issue of war spending bill, Hillary gave several speeches asking people to stay firm. She even circulated a petition for voters to sign as well as encourage people to call their elective to pressure them keep the withdrawal timeline. At least she tried, which is much more than others can say.

DJM, as for Al Qaeda thriving on Clinton’s watch, you should read Richard Clarke’s Against All Enemies which show Clinton’s obssession with fighting Al Qaeda that was born from the Reagan and Bush Sr.’s Administration and ignored by Bush Jr. As for withdrawing from Somalia, it was the Republican Congress that insisted on the withdrawl and a timeline for withdrawing troops from Somalia. As for the economy, it wasn’t just market forces. Bill Clinton worked with Alan Greenspan in reducing the deficit and thereby encouraging the bond market to fix lower interest rates which created greater borrowing and investment and lower rate of inflation.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…